I am now convinced the problem is really trivial to solve. The problem is that ldlinux.c32 is too big, but we already know that stripping the modules gets them down to a reasonable size: 430318 ldlinux.c32 114376 ldlinux.c32 It would also be nice to support LZO or gzip compressed modules: 66798 ldlinux.c32.lzo 61513 ldlinux.c32.gzip ... which would really take care of the problem. But as a first cut, just stripping the modules will help a huge lot. -hpa -- H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
Op 17-1-2013 19:29, H. Peter Anvin schreef:> I am now convinced the problem is really trivial to solve. The problem > is that ldlinux.c32 is too big, but we already know that stripping the > modules gets them down to a reasonable size: > > 430318 ldlinux.c32 > 114376 ldlinux.c32So stripped files inside the binary installer, followed by the installer being compressed? Both size and memory reduction then, nice solution you found there.> 66798 ldlinux.c32.lzo > 61513 ldlinux.c32.gzip > > ... which would really take care of the problem.Theoretical complaint: wouldn't a decompression engine in the Syslinux core file itself go against the design goals? Inside LDLINUX.C32 a decompression engine is logical/necessary at least for loading modules/libraries/kernels Bernd
> It would also be nice to support LZO or gzip compressed modules: > > 66798 ldlinux.c32.lzo > 61513 ldlinux.c32.gzip > > ... which would really take care of the problem.BTW, you might want to evaluate updating the [mini]LZO code included in more than one directory of the Syslinux archive (LZO v2.03) to its latest version (v2.06). http://www.oberhumer.com/opensource/lzo/lzonews.php> > But as a first cut, just stripping the modules will help a huge lot. >Stripping the modules would be welcome independently of the DOS installer issue anyway. TIA, Ady.